Thursday, March 13, 1997
HEADQUARTERS:
Some question if proximity, expense justify decisionBy Brooke
Olson
and Tiffany Lauter
Daily Bruin Staff
It began as a quest for singularity. When the 10-year lease for
the UC Offices of the President (UCOP) came up for renewal, the
staff decided to abandon the Oakland Kaiser Center building in
search of a place they could call their own.
But nearly a year later, some are doubting the president’s
decision to erect a building specifically designed for the
university headquarters.
A multimillion dollar lawsuit, an allegedly "incompetent"
construction company and the UCOP’s willingness to pay 100 times
more than the going rate for office space have caused concern among
some who feel that the $32 million deal was done in haste.
Currently, the president’s office is renting 15 out of the 26
floors at the Kaiser Center building, located in the heart of
Oakland. With $5 million a year in rent and nearly 30 minutes to UC
Berkeley, the closest UC campus, the Office of the President
remains, to some, an isolated and untouchable entity.
"The Office of the President  which is responsible for
many of the policies governing the UCs  is not really
accessible to students or faculty," said Kimi Lee, executive
director of the University of California Student Association
(UCSA).
Yet the decision to move isn’t likely to solve the problems of
accessibility.
The new headquarters are located in Oakland on Franklin Street
 just over eight blocks south from the current office
space.
Administrators contend that the location of the president’s
office is insignificant because the headquarters does not directly
concern faculty and students.
"Very little of what goes on (in the Office of the President)
has to do with students and faculty," said UCLA Chancellor Charles
Young.
But some students challenged this statement, noting that most
UC-wide policy decisions affecting students and faculty are
instigated by the president’s office.
Some students said UCOP’s decision to live in what they
described as a gilded tower devoid of students and faculty only
demonstrates the president’s lack of concern for outside input.
"(This) speaks volumes about what’s wrong with the UC
Administration," said student Regent Jess Bravin. "(It’s a) nemesis
of so many problems that the UC’s face today.
"The administration is rightly described as remote (and) as
pursuing goals that are often contrary to the interests of
California residents as a whole and (their) desire to be as far
away as possible from the scene of the crime is perhaps
understandable but certainly not excusable," Bravin added.
However, establishing the headquarters at any one UC campus
would deem it the premiere university, UC chancellors and
administrators argued.
"It’s more neutral and it does not adopt any one campus as the
flagship university"of the UC system, said UC Regent Clair
Burgener.
Ideology is not the only limiting factor  there is also a
lack of available office space on the UC campuses.
"There is no room in the campus at all," said Marie Felde,
spokesperson for UC Berkeley, the campus which would most likely
house UCOP staff.
The location of UCOP is unique compared with other university
offices of the president.
At the University of Florida, the Office of the President is in
the heart of the state capitol.
"The (president) works closely with the governor on issues
pertinent to the state and higher education," said Susan McDowell,
spokesperson for the University of Florida.
Still other president’s offices are situated on campus. The
University of Michigan headquarters is on the Ann Harbor campus for
dual purposes.
Not only does the President preside over the University as a
whole, but the official is also the Chancellor of Ann Arbor. It is
also important to have the regents and the president’s staff close
to students and faculty, said Kim Clarke, spokeswoman for the
University of Michigan.
"It helps to have them on campus because then the regents and
the president are more in touch with the students and the
campuses," Clarke said.
Some argue that UCOP could have moved closer to the Berkeley
campus into an existing building, thereby saving money in the
development and construction of the new headquarters.
According to commercial realtors, when the UCOP was reviewing
alternatives to their lease two years ago, there was a substantial
number of vacancies in the central business area.
The existing space would have cost between $1.70 and $2.15 per
square foot fully serviced, complete with a paint and carpeting
allowance to upgrade the interior.
"This … office space was a Class A building," said one
realtor, who asked that his name not be used.
UCOP would have had no problem locating the necessary 358,000
square feet in a condition comparable to their current location,
the realtor said. In addition, it would have been nearly 100
percent cheaper than the the $200 per square foot UCOP is paying
for the new building.
The president could have found existing space at a lower rate
than what the UC is both currently renting and building, the
realtor said.
However, UC received 31 proposals for office space in the
surrounding counties, but only six came close to UCOP’s
requirements, said UC spokesman Terry Colvin.
The requirements included available parking space, desirable
proximity to restaurants and health club facilities, as well as
kitchen facilities and top-notch security systems both within and
around the building, said UCOP staff members.
In addition, UCOP officials and regents maintain that
construction of the building will benefit the Oakland
community.
"It is a major economic contribution to the downtown Oakland
area and it will help revitalize the local economy," said UC
spokesperson Rick Malaspina.
Still some believe that it is not the University’s
responsibility to enhance a community’s economic situation.
"It’s remarkable to suddenly see such a great interest in (the)
urban plight," Bravin said, noting that the redevelopment of
downtown Oakland was never an official criteria in choosing the
site.
But six months after choosing both the site and the construction
firm, the regents approved a multi-million dollar lawsuit against
Hensel Phelps, which is building the new headquarters.
Hensel Phelps construction company was hired to upgrade UCLA’s
Northwest Housing and Parking facilities in 1988. Three years after
the project was completed, UC administrators allege that the
construction company was incompetent in the upgrade.
According to the lawsuit filed last November, the UCLA buildings
contain dangerous shower facilities, inadequate drainage systems
and defective lighting fixtures.
Regents denied knowledge of the lawsuit, even though the board
had received a list of current lawsuits last September.
"I have no recollection," said Regent Frank Clark Jr.
Board members believe that the lawsuit should have been brought
to their attention by legal counsel, who were present at that
meeting.
"This is a huge amount of money  we’re talking a
multi-million dollar litigation," Bravin said. "It should have at
least been brought to discussion."
UC General Counsel James Holst acknowledges that a written
report was submitted to the regents listing various legal action,
but there was never any verbal deliberation about Hensel Phelps
Construction.
In addition, administrators say they knew about the alleged
construction defects in March 1996 when they considered builders
for the new headquarters.
But, the damage has been done  the regents signed the
construction agreement with Hensel Phelps last July and it is
nearly impossible for the board to break the pact without being
sued for breach of contract, administrators said.
Besides, administrators argue, the construction company was the
cheapest and UC has had problems with virtually all construction
companies within the state, Malaspina said.
But some believe Hensel Phelps was chosen for their close
political ties with the City of Oakland.
"Hensel Phelps has good relations with the city and it’s a lot
of ‘who you know’" to get permits approved quickly and easily, the
realtor said.
In order to safeguard themselves from further litigation, the
University’s contract places all liability on the Oakland
development company for any problems that may arise with Hensel
Phelps, administrators said.
"The University will not supervise or direct the construction,"
Holst said. "The University entered into an agreement with a
development group," which had hired Hensel Phelps to do the
construction.
Although few were quick to condemn the University’s decision to
erect new headquarters, the issue raised a lot of questions and
concerns among students about administrative policy.
"I can’t say it’s a terrible decision  but there are so
many troubling indicators about it that it looks like we are
heading towards another white elephant within the UC system,"
Bravin said. "I wish I (could have) more confidence in the
administration regarding these types of projects."